United States v. Worrell

326 F. App'x 167
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Worrell. Read the opinion of the Court — 292 F. App'x 220
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 5, 2009·No. 08-8300·Unpublished

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Patrick Worrell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court debatable or wrong and any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Worrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials *168 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Worrell, 326 F. App'x 167 (4th Cir. 2009).

326 F. App'x 167 (United States v. Worrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Juanita Pope Reid v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director
369 F.3d 363 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)